--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
... However, I believe that you, Mark and other arbitrators are examining the problem *only* from your point of view as arbitrators. This is an unnecessary limitation of perspective. I think there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.
The possibility of error and corruption always exists whenever you include humans in a process. But increasing the number of vetted people involved will tend to decrease this possibility, no? The ArbCom already hears cases that involve violations of our content-related policies. Making it easier for them to cut through subtle POV and original research will be make that body work more effectively in making sure our content-related polices are followed.
I don't feel that I have proposed anything that would increase the possibility of corruption and error. In fact, I feel I have made a proposal that would decrease this possibility for the current ArbCom. Other approaches can and should also be explored, but I do think what I've proposed can be part of the solution.
Now that you have so cogently pointed out the problem -- it's possible to wage "wars of attrition" over articles, and the person first to explode or give up is likely to lose --
Yep - this is exactly the problem. Bad behavior is bad no matter how factually correct and content policy-adhering your edits are and there should be consequences for that. *But* being factually correct and more closely adhering to our content policies should mitigate any remedy against a user while persistently not doing that should multiply any remedy against another user.
If we are serious about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia first and a wiki community second, then we must take some stance similar to that. Yet, factually correctness and how closely something follows our content policies is not something the ArbCom by itself is competent to determine except in the most obvious of cases (which are much fewer and further between now). Thus my idea of having various bodies we could consult on content-related matters.
I would like us to look together for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us down the road of credentialism and hierarchy.
I fail to see how having a consultive body to the ArbCom would do that. They would not have any power of their own and there will be checks and balances. I'd just like to be able to ask groups of respected and vetted users who have demonstrated some competence in certain areas questions from time to time as needed.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com